Re: [sidr] [fixed] Confirming that the last interim reflects working group consensus

[Eric Osterweil <[e-mail]>]

On Oct 11, 2012, at 12:24 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:

> Chris,
> 
> 	I think that you and Sandy mentioned that
> draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-threats and draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-threats should
> be done before
> draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol but it was just by email, I believe.
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr/current/msg05078.html
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/sidr/current/msg05080.html
> 
> 	I was not in the interim, so I do not know if you discussed the issue
> there again.


fwiw, I was at the interim, and I do recall the comment being made.  

That said (and at the risk of stating the obvious), can we not agree that the protocol draft will almost certainly need changes and/or an overhaul depending on the scale of the changes that may be coming to the threats and reqs drafts?  I'm just thinking that if we are going to continue to pursue those drafts as prerequisites, then iterating over and polishing their derivative work (the protocol draft) now seems like it may yield text that becomes obsoleted by those prerequisites, right?

Eric